I need everyone's help... - news.admin.net-abuse.email

Message from discussion I need everyone's help...

SPAMJAMR

View profile

More options Nov 8 2004, 10:06 pm

Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email

From: SPAMJAMR <Letzta...@aol.com>

Date: 8 Nov 2004 19:06:03 -0800

Local: Mon, Nov 8 2004 10:06 pm

Subject: Re: I need everyone's help...

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

In article <5a07596f.0411080539.2e05c...@posting.google.com>, SuN Tsu says...

>SPAMJAMR <Letzta...@aol.com> still with his head up his arse and
>defending a lose in the manner Ferguson defended "Miller the Piller"
>did lieebel himself by saying:<cmmlln01...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> Sun attacked Darren because he didnt like his demeanor
>> and some of the things he was saying. Sun, in his own
>> mind, had Darren tried and convicted

>Not true.

Baloney. What did you have on him when you made your first post about him?
Nothing, other than he was bragging a lot and saying a lot of stupid newbie
stuff.

You as much as called him a liar about calling Intercosmos and didnt believe
that Donny was a real person. I dont recall an apology about that either but I
may have missed it.

You started in on him unprovoked, other than your dislike for his demeanor. I
wouldn't have cared if you just told him you thought he was koooky and acting
stupid. I really didnt care when you said you doubted he called Intercosmos. But
when I saw your baloney evidence about him being a spammer that was too much.

I actually began reading your posted evidence with the full belief you had outed
him, but it was quickly apparent you were either very sloppy or slinging
complete bullshit.

>But it's exacttly what you and Brother have done.

See above.

>PKB

>What was designed to flush out one kind of kook apparently flushed out
>another.

Bullshit, you dont concoct lies like that to "flush out" someone you define as a
kook.

>You continue to post with a personal and biased agenda.

Biased to what? Are you going to accuse me of being a spammer or spam supporter?

I responded to Organic for accusing Moris of being a spammer purely because of
his behaviour. I have responded to others for making up or repeating bullshit
about about SPEWS (i.e. you stay listed as long as the spam complaints were
ignored) and presenting them to posters as if they were facts.

That kind of crap does far more harm than any spammer can do.

>You say one thing and do quite another.

Exactly what have I said that I have not done? Be specific.

>Your mind has been made up for quite some time now, even in the face of
>>overwhelming evidence.

Evidence of what? You haven't presented any evidence that he is a spammer.
What did he spamvertise? EXACTLY. Prove it. Where is a sample of the spam?

>You said,

>> I will speak out to anyone who makes accusations without
>> proof and will continue to do so as I choose.

>Thus far you have chosen *not* to speak out against Darren Brothers
>whilst you see proof being posted which debunks each and every one of
>*his* malicious and unwarranted allegations.

Liar. Its in this very thread.

From: SPAMJAMR (Letzta...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: I need everyone's help...
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Date: 2004-10-28 21:05:19 PST

In article <W7Wfd.35689$QJ3.9...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Spam Reporting
says...

>Just what the hell is a 'mini-DDoS'? Is an image not loading in
>once every 100,000 times a DDoS? Because that's about the
>average, 100,000 image loads to one image load failure. I don't
>see how you can call that a DDoS... it's called 'data draining',

[snip]

"If you are causing spammers to lose accounts, or to get shut down due to BW
overages, or whatever you want to call it, that is just plain wrong. You have
made yourself no better than the spammers you are supposed to be above."

[snip]

"Sun accused you of being a spammer and has yet to provide the proof he said he
would, and keeps avoiding the question. It was wrong."

"It also just as wrong for you to accuse him without proof no matter how
strongly you feel about it. There is no justice or justification in behaving
like Sun. Your actions are making it very difficult to tell the difference
between you and Sun."

>You have, however, continued to post on behalf of a kook

I post on the behalf of me, period, because what you did is wrong. It doesn't
matter how kooky he is, how stupid he acts, or how much he brags, no one has the
right to outright fabricate bullshit, non-existent evidence and brand someone a
spammer.

That is as bad if not worse than Spam Vampire, and *you* are supposed to know
better.

>who cannot defend his own baseless accusations/stupidity, as well as come to
>>the defense of Mark Ferguson, who has accused the US FBI of spamming child
>pr0n.

Why do you have a problem with Mark accusing someone of being spammer without
proof?

>And you have posted this about "Implicate Others Brothers' "
>adversary.

>> Go fuck yourself, let me repeat that, go fuck yourself.

>>No one is here to answer to your petty whines, no one is obligated
>> to do your bidding, no one owes you jack shit.

>This is true,

Which part, the first or the second?

>and the same goes for you, too.

Nooooo, reeeeely?

>Yet you answer to Brother's petty whines and come to his defense

You are so full of it, get over yourself.

>all whilst ignoring that he repeatedly makes malicious and false accusations
>>which are easily debunked.

See above response to same point.

>Your anger and personal animosity for a single poster in a simple
>discussion group

Hmmmm, perhaps I have should have picked a difficult discussion group.

>has been duly noted.

Is this where I am supposed to get worried?

>You have also claimed,

>> I am not siding with him

>Yet it Shirley appears that you are.

Same point addressed above. how many times will you repeat this?

>Although you did comment,

>> Moris is an even bigger kook that Anonymous.

>At least you *acknowledge* that he is a kook.

>You further stated,

>> Yes, I have a personal agenda against accusations made of
>> anyone without verifiable proof. Even spammer and kooks have
>> rights.

>OK, then, the kook Darren Brothers has done just that repeatedly and
>yet you do and say absolutely *nothing* about it. Why is that?

Sheesh same point again. Answered above.

Why do you keep avoiding the question of *your* accusation that he is a spammer?
You repeatedly turn the topic to something else.

***YOU*** were the first one to make a false accusation and ***you*** have yet
to answer for it.

>Only someone like you could defend someone like Brothers who stupidly
>and repeated posts in NANAE that he "doesn't like" to use SpamVampire,
>but that spammers "force him to," but that he really "enjoys it!" and
>who keeps "tricj-ing" himself into looking like a fool all whilst
>blaming it on theBanana(tm).

Same point addressed above.

>Yea, you Shirley picked yourself another "winnah" this time for sure.

>If you don't apply your principles across the board, they aren't
>really your principles, now are they? Or do you have any principles
>at all?

Since you accuse me of saying nothing to him about it, and failed to mention the
post I referenced above, I have to wonder if you have any principles.

One who is, by his own admission, willing to lie to "flush" a kook is devoid of
principles.

>You know what, don't bother answering because _your_opinion_ doesn't
>really matter to anyone but _you_ and you don't matter to
>theBanana(tm).

Liar. If it didnt matter, you would not have responded.

--
--

Paging Snotty Richter, please pick up the red "You're Fucked Now" phone.
Keep the Internet clean, practise spammus interruptus

Reply to author Forward